TOPIC:

Either way the MRP will be embarrassed, firstly if it is thrown out like most, myself included, believe and secondly if the charge was sustained, then the lack of punishment for Goodes and Franklin would also be embarrassing because everyone apart from them believe the latter two were worse offences.

BC wrote: if Ballantyne goes it will make a mockery of the Goodes on Selwood incident where Goodes left the ground, made high contact after the ball had been moved on from the immediate area, knocked Selwood arse up but wasn't cited.

Spot on...was looked at, but wasnt sited, as isufficent force, despite leaving selwood flat on his back!!

Anchorman said:
Reading the paper this morning what has happened may be the best thing for Ballantyne.
Though I think to actually look at it as a reportable offence is ludicrous, if the MRP had adjudicated on it,Ballantyne would HAVE to have served time because he has carry over points. There is no way he could have missed doing time.

This is the heart of the matter, they looked at it and thought, if we stick to our stupid rules, he will be suspended, he will defend it citing other instances, including Franklin and appeal and will win. Too hard! handball it on to the tribunal.

Still reckon that with all the recent MRP bump results that Nat Fyfe was just plain unlucky to cop his 2 weeks. Where is the consistency or should I say the MRP has the consistency of lumpy custard

Don't think going to the tribunal is the best thing for Ballantyne, the best thing for him and also for football would have been for the MRP to have taken no further action.

Fair bump play on!

What a load of nonsense this was.

anchorman wrote: Just read on another site that Ballantyne has nothing to answer for.
Free to play.
Also just read it on the AFL web site.
Great news. Common sense prevails.

Ohh maybe the VICTORIANSgot it right a/man,? oh and Goodes Franklin play for Sydney, not any Victorian team. Be careful that chip on yer shoulder may be gettin heavy a/man

In reality, under today's interpretation, Balla should have been cited by the MRP. Not saying I agree with it, but that's the mess the AFL have created. In a true 'Aussie Rules ' match it should be "fair bump, play on". But we don't play Aussie Rules any more. As much as I dislike the little prick, it's good that he got off. After watching Buddy's hit last night, I'm absolutely gobsmacked. I like everyone, else am totally confused. Balla's was illegal, but Buddy's was legal?? Get the fuk outa here!!

58shark wrote: In reality, under today's interpretation, Balla should have been cited by the MRP. Not saying I agree with it, but that's the mess the AFL have created. In a true 'Aussie Rules ' match it should be "fair bump, play on". But we don't play Aussie Rules any more. As much as I dislike the little prick, it's good that he got off. After watching Buddy's hit last night, I'm absolutely gobsmacked. I like everyone, else am totally confused. Balla's was illegal, but Buddy's was legal?? Get the fuk outa here!!

NOT cos it was against my cats man, but selwoods clean up by Goodes was even more laughable, feet left the ground, no eyes on the ball and elbow to the head, Selwood flattened, BUT insufficeint force!! Agree 58 gut the fuk outta here

anchorman wrote: All part of the AFL franchise players group Unka. Maybe it is you who has the rose coloured glasses on. Remember Buddy is the ambassador in Sydney for the AFL. And Goodes!!!!!! well we know he is Mr Perfect and can do no wrong.
May it was lucky that Moose Henwood was on the tribunal,an old South Freo boy.

What a/man a non vic on the mrp,well i NEVER. All trhe AFL dois look after the teams that they see help the business, in the short term, and then the long term. That is look after Essendon Pies Blues, stuff the rest.